Contract Testing: Regenerate API Token

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description does not disclose behaviors beyond what annotations already provide (destructiveHint: true). It fails to explain what regeneration entails, such as whether the old token is immediately invalidated, whether a new token is returned, or any authorization requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the core action. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices necessary details for brevity. Every word earns its place, but the overall content is too sparse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a destructive operation with no output schema, the description should provide more context about the effects, return value, and any side effects. The current description is insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's implications.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes the tokenId parameter with 100% coverage. The description merely restates the parameter name and its requirement, adding no additional semantics, constraints, or examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (regenerate/rotate) and the resource (API token by ID). However, it does not distinguish this tool from its siblings, such as list_api_tokens or other token-related tools, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling tools might be more appropriate (e.g., listing tokens before regenerating).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.